In a post from a long time ago, unrelated to the actual topic of the post, a very interesting discussion of sexual ownership developed. (This is why I cherish thread drift, by the way.) The issue was the way white women treat—judging, sneering, accusing—white men who are in romantic relationships with non-white women, especially Asian* women. Fairly late in the thread, Mike explains:
Mike on said:
… It’s funny, because when my friend offered to introduce me to a “nice Cambodian lady”, I told him that she should be “at least” 35, so we’d have some kind of continuity in terms of age. I initially met Jen online and she told me she was 35. Over a webcam it’s often hard to tell, but I had no reason to doubt her.
As for the looks my wife and I get in public, it’s been an eye-opener. Yes, I always knew that there were people who found time to care about this stuff but being the recipient of their attention wasn’t something I’d had a lot of direct exposure to.
The sneers we get (well, that *I* get) are almost palpable, lol. Eventually after several months I mentioned this to my wife; she was mostly unaware of it, but after I mentioned it she started seeing it too. The “up-and-down” look done at the same time as the lip curls into an expression of mild-to-blatant disapproval.
Some of it is a built-in prejudice based on a combination of age difference and apparent attractiveness. Let me be honest: I’m no damn movie star, and GQ is *not* going to be breaking down my door for a photo shoot anytime soon. I mean, I don’t have to sneak up on a mirror, but I’m no hunk. My wife, on the other hand, is way more beautiful than I deserve. And somehow, this seems unfair to them- because the fact is that there is no white, American woman anywhere near as cute as my wife who would ever date, let alone marry, a guy like me. (I’d be lucky if I could get them to spit on me.) So they look at us and they’re like “WTF??”
This condemnation of white men and Asian women in romantic relationships is nothing new. I remember this attitude from my childhood, the sense that these men were preying on these women, exploiting them in some way. Nowadays this is often expressed in accusations that these men are looking for a “subservient Asian woman” as a form of sexist dominance. That accusation is simultaneously sexist and racist.
It is sexist because it presumes that the white men are making all the moves and making all the choices—and then it condemns them for it. It trades in hyperagency and hypoagency.
It is racist because it is a plain expression of white supremacy in two ways. First, it casts the white men as some kind of all-powerful predators, and second, it casts white women as the default object of white men’s attractions, so that if a white man is attracted to an Asian woman, there must be something nefarious or deviant about it.
Mike was following up on an earlier comment:
Mike on said:
The whole “mail order bride” syndrome you mention, is still open for criticism and comment.
Oh, tell me about it. 🙁
As if I selected her from a catalog and paid for overnight shipping (so she’d still be fresh when she got here!). It’s astoundingly offensive, and honestly, I think a lot of the “mail order bride” comments stem from jealousy (although some probably come from simple ignorance).
As far as I am concerned the ignorance comes out of jealousy, because it is obviously self-serving.
Some other comments in the discussion:
Paul on said:
You know, I look at all these women who are yelling about “yellow fever” and I honestly wonder how many of them have (or have had) black boyfriends.
I used to have this friend when I was a young’un (as in middle/high school) who was… well, proud, frankly, about the fact that she refused to date white men. (She herself was blonde’n’blueyed) Her ahem “preference” was for latino men (and she did eventually marry a man who is latino, never met him though) although I seem to recall her saying she’d be willing to date black men as well.
It just goes back to the whole “men have nasty ‘fetishes’ women have ‘preferences’” thing.
And also:
Paul on said:
Actually, now that I think of it, this applies to a lot more things than just race.
Society apparently tells women that the “pinnacle” of beauty is a white woman, preferably blonde and blue-eyed, who’s skinny with big breasts and somewhere between say 5’3 and 5’6 give or take an inch.
Women say that this being seen as the end all and be all of beauty is wrong (and you’ll get no argument from me on that point)
And yet… apparently if any man expresses any desires that *do* fall outside these qualities… he’s told he’s “fetishizing” and “objectifying” How exactly do they expect to widen the scope of “attractive” when every time men tell them that we don’t believe in that ideal any more than they do, we’re told to “stop fetishizing”?
The stink of sexual ownership and sexual entitlement and sexist double standards hovers over this entire issue. Of course, white women’s sense of sexual ownership of white men is covered up and presented as white women protecting their non-white sisters. They still expect people to fall for that, even though POC feminists and womanists can tell you all about white women’s solicitude for non-white women.
And the final comment on the matter sums up everything with the voice of humanity and clear, sweet reason. And it also happens to employ “flip the genders” and “flip the races” to show how offensive this sense of sexual ownership is:
Jo on said:
as a mixed race woman (black/white) I prefer white men with brown hair. Always have since I was a little girl. I don’t know why I just do. Men are free to prefer whoever they like, its neither racist nor sexist, its a preference. I am open to other experiences and have fallen in love with different types but it just so happened that I married my preference. Black people have said that I was racist. Black men in particular have been offended by me and my preference, they said that I thought I was ‘too good for them’ etc. I don’t object to personal preference. I object to the only value of women being placed on their youth, skinniness and blondness as a cultural NORM/IDEAL. It is not. I hate that men and women are ridiculed for finding=== other types attractive. And funnily enough the men I am attracted to are the cultural NORM/IDEAL (tall, dark). If I was a man and preferred skinny blonde women I’m sure the venom would be profound. It doesn’t make it wrong, it makes it wrong that there is a cultural NORM that is forced upon us by the media. There should be a better representation of everyone, it would take the heat off us all and allow us to like who we damn please.
I am very familiar with being told whom I could be attracted to and, much worse, being told whom I could not be attracted to, and I have so little patience for that bigoted, self-serving idiocy to even bother to answer it. It doesn’t deserve an answer.
Martha Nussbaum identified ownership explicitly as a form of objectification. That’s what this herd-tending and moral judgy-ness is on the par with these white women. It is objectification.
* I have learned to clarify for our non-U.S. readers that in the United States “Asian” means “East Asian.” Desi don’t register as “Asian” for most Americans.
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016
by 
on a semi related note–white nationalist/white supremacist Chuck Rudd/GL Piggy has made his blog private. Probably doesn’t want his views publicly aired anymore as he seems to be going for a “perfessional writing career.”
funny how much of the man-0-sphere and racists like Marcotte/Schwyzer are SO similar…
intersectionality anyone???
the only place I’ve seen this shit discussed is at omegavirginrevolt…
everywhere else it’s all-oh, HBD, it ain’t pseudoscience…
I think that the whole “white privilege” guilt trip is bullshit but we live in a white supremacist culture…
As far as white privilege being BS-how can anyone say for example, that a poor white person born in the appalachian mountains is more privileged than O’Bombya’s children? You need some kind of femanzi weirdness like Marcotte to even pull that one off…
As far as a white supremacist culture–look how far non-white people go to appear more white. Women bleaching their hair blonde is one example…
I remember a friend of mine, a white guy telling me about when he was in Brazil, he hooked up with a woman with naitive/indian features. His housemates, lighter skinned Brazillians were all “What do you see in here?” And she was all happy that he wasn’t ashamed to be seen with her.
This could probably also be compared to slut-shaming, which is mostly done by women, I’m told, to “devalue” higher-status women (women who put out). Despite certain parties’ attempts to blame it on The Patriarchy, there’s no real reason provided for why men would voluntarily decide to make it harder for themselves to get laid.
Similarly, you get women from the “wrong” culture, and they get sneered at because, in the minds of the bigot, they’re “stealing” men of their race, increasing the competition pool, and, yep, devaluing “regular” women. They might not want to date those men themselves, as SWAB pointed out, but they don’t want anyone else to have it either. Reminds me of “the immigrants are stealin’ our jobs!” coming from people who never did blue-collar or manual labour in their life.
Related: I got in an argument on Imgur a while back with someone who said that straight men who didn’t like being ogled by other men, when they liked to ogle women, were homophobic.* I asked if this made gay men who don’t like being ogled by straight women misogynist or straightphobic.
And the logical backflips began.
* This is a common meme among tumblr SJWs. Of course, they’re effectively saying that there’s no problem with a man ogling as long as he doesn’t mind being ogled in turn, which kinda goes against the party line that all (male) ogling (of women) is wrong. Strangely enough, the meme never includes him being ogled by a woman.
The mail order bride thing actually supports gender norms. Men are valued for the things they produce like money. Women are valued for looks / youth. Funny thing is feminists will almost (I haven’t found one who doesn’t, but will qualify it just in case) universally condemn the mail order bride thing while simultaneously condemning men for over looking a woman’s inner qualities. So why wouldn’t / shouldn’t a woman overlook the man’s deficiency in looks / age and be attracted to his inner beauty.
There are three white men that I know who’ve married non-U.S. Asian women and one who married a U.S. Asian woman. One was my father. One married my cousin. None of the marriages have ended in divorce. All seem perfectly content. One man confessed how much he adores his wife even though he hates Filipino food and has to buy his dinner on the way home from work. That’s the rub. Most people assume that the man is looking for a subservient wife when it’s been my experience that the women actually control the household. My cousin’s husband basically has a spot in the basement, an X-box and TV.
None of these guys are complaining. They admit that their wives take care of them very well, but they also admit that their wives “wear the pants” in the family. My father was probably the closest to being in charge and that’s only because he controlled the investment, decided where we would live due to his job choices, etc. He was also a generation older though.
SWAB, that was a particularly rich post.
Whie supremacy – the best thing I ever heard or read on that was a talk by Louis Farrakhan. His definition of white supremacy was elegantly simple and useful – white supremacy is the belief that white people are supreme (not some bogus “fact” that we are.) That means anyone who attributes supremacy to whites is a white supremacist. So when Suey Park goes on an on adwhite privivlege and white supremacy…..
The same goes for male supremacy, better known as Patriarchy. Ahem.
SYABM,
“Related: I got in an argument on Imgur a while back with someone who said that straight men who didn’t like being ogled by other men, when they liked to ogle women, were homophobic.*”
I have no respect and no patience for women who sling accusations of homophobia around as a silencing tacict. None. I’m done.
They imagine themselves to be “allies” of gay men. They are not; they are parasites appropriating gay men’s oppression, to use their terminology – transparently so when all they wnat it for is to shut straight men up.
Their pervarications when you point out where their claims lead come as no surprise.
John,
Yeah, that whole “you just want a subservient….” accusation is nothing but a racist trope. Your experience jibes with everyone else’s.
Just a sec there Ginkgo… shouldn’t the title be “THIS is what…”? The is what sounds pleasantly like good solid Engrish, but I thought I should bring it up, considering that SYABM has found that the tumblrfems are on to our critical weakness: spelling errors in titles! All that evidence and argument and conclusion can’t wash away such irreedeemable slights! We are lost! Flee immediately!
Fixed! Thank you. SYABM is right,that is about the level of their criticism. With such enemies, who needs friends?
@ Ginkgo
“I have no respect and no patience for women who sling accusations of homophobia around as a silencing tacict. None. I’m done.”
I don’t have a problem with that as long as they’re consistent, which they never are. I ask how feminists can support victim blaming only when it comes to “battered women’s defense”. If you’re against “victim blaming”, shouldn’t you be against the victim blaming of the dead guy? How can you supporting banning the ceremonial nick for infant girls, while opposing a ban on male genital mutilation? It’s feminists’ inconsistency that prevents discussion more than their inaccuracy.
I can remember hearing the fuss about the so called ‘mail order brides’ some time ago in the US. There was talk of introducing some rather heavy handed legislation to combat the so called ‘problem.’
The ones driving for the changes; why, the sisterhood of permanent offense, of course. Did these laws ever come into effect? I’ve not heard anymore.
Interestingly, I noted that women’s choices didn’t seem to be mentioned in all this.
But I suppose that’s different. You just can’t trust men!
A few years back I spent a couple of months in China. One of the things I noticed, many of the younger generation are learning to speak English. And they speak it well. When I engaged in conversation with them, and they discovered that I was English, they viewed this as something special, a native speaker of
the language. These conversations would help pass the time, especially at train stations.
On one such occasion, a young woman in her mid teens, who I’d been talking to, insisted on carrying some of my bags when my train arrived. They were quite heavy as well, but despite what I said to discourage her, she wouldn’t have any of it, and helped me onto the train with them. I was culture shocked!
It took me completely by surprise. I’m not saying that women in the west wouldn’t do such a thing, and I believe the great majority are decent and kind; but when there’s large bags around, and men, maintaining ‘certain cultural stereotypes,’ is ok. Again we accept this, and I don’t view it as a problem; but that incident stood out.
Regards,
Dave.
“I don’t have a problem with that as long as they’re consistent, which they never are.”
John, inconsistency is not the worst of it; their rank cynicsm is. Their protestations of concern for gay men are nullified by they misandry – and considering how the core of homophobia is the accusation that gay men are not really masculine enough, their apparent belief that misandry doesn’t affect gay men is homophobic.
Welcome, Dave. Interesting story. There was a post on Reddit a while ago about an American woman who had gone to work for a while in Japan. When she got back she went around to every man she knew thanking him for the chivlarous courtesies she had been shown all her life and taken for granted.
A long ago, back in the late 80s when I was in Guangzhou, I tried to pull the chair out for a women. She moved to the next one. I tried with that chair. This exasperated her slightly. I hope she mentioned it to someone later so she could have a laugh about not reading the foreigner right.
Great examples of double standards, e.g., “the men have nasty ‘fetishes,’ women have ‘preferences’ thing.”
I am deeply touched and energized by your thoughtful, dispassionate (read rhetoric free), and strong intellectually honest discourse. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
Historically, men by and large are culpable of doing a very poor job of understanding and engaging in issues for both genders. Given the pathological hostility from some camps on raising men’s issues, it’s ironic that helping men understand and discuss their issues, I believe, will lead to better gender equality for everyone.
First off, welcome, Steve.
“Given the pathological hostility from some camps on raising men’s issues, it’s ironic that helping men understand and discuss their issues, I believe, will lead to better gender equality for everyone.”
Second, yes. This is what Typhonblue has been saying for years. the hyperagency/hypoagency dyad hurts everyone, in complimentary ways.
http://www.artofmanliness.com/2014/04/21/where-does-manhood-come-from/
Welcome, Mark.
Wow, that’s a long, meaty article. A quick scan tells me I probably agree with quite a lot of it.
Wow. I’d forgotten about those comments. Unfortunately, they seem to be even more true today than when I first wrote them.
Nowadays, not only are men (and white men especially) fetishizers if we find X trait attractive, but we’re also X-ist if we *don’t* find things attractive.
Men, apparently, are required to have sex with whomever desires it from us. If we don’t, it means we’re racist or transphobic, or body shaming or just plain misogynistic.
Hell, for that matter, it’s not just people. Certain sex acts are now required in order to avoid the spectre of being a “shitlord” Don’t want to eat a woman out? Body shaming and sexist. Don’t want to get pegged up the ass? You’re a homophobe even if your would be partner is a woman.
It has a lot of information about conditions in various tribes around the world with regards to masculinity, also some that have been said to be egalitarian but aren’t really, and it has interesting information about what conditions leads to which types of emphasis on masculine ideals, roles for men etc. so I figured it was useful information for the discussions here. There are five more long articles in the series. I haven`t had time to read them all yet.
@Ginkgo :
I’ve seen a few Tumblr SJWs ask why MRAs don’t talk about the “real” male victims, like black men and gay men, implying that MRAs are really augering for white men. They are informed that a)they do, and b)such groups are a subset of “men”. Of course, in their minds, “gay” and “black” are the primary groups, with oppression of men in those groups just a subset of that. The idea that “man” is itself a group that has its own issues which occasionally intersect with “black” and “gay” and other things seems to be beyond their comprehension.
@Paul
He’s not kidding, folks.
Without some relatively good reason for why he doesn’t like oral sex …, do women who enjoy receiving oral sex … have a 100% right to be like, “That is some misogynist bullshit right there, and if you are not only unwilling to give me what I need to be sexually satisfied but you also pathologize my body then you are officially kicked to the curb”? YES.
The sexual entitlement is just dripping from the post, and most of the comments. Related: Louie depicted the title character being raped by a woman after she expected him to give her head in return for a blowjob, IIRC. She threatened to break his finger if he didn’t. There was a feminist writer at Slate who thought the woman was in the right. She never managed to call it “rape”. I wonder if any of the commenters on that article saw that episode, and what they thought about it.
Mark, that’s what i liked about the article, that it examined actual cultures and compared thier masculinities. This by the way is what these odious Men’s Studies departments set up to head off the establishment of Male Studies should be doing – actual socialogical comparative work.
Instead what you get is some refernnece to the Mosuo in southern China, who have this wonderful matrilineal society that’s quite happy and stable, thank you very much – while ignoring some obvious questions, such as why it is that the patrilineal Han came to dominate the entire region culturally, politically and economically while the gentle matrilineal Mosuo are holed up in a few valleys in the south of the country.
This approach would do a lot to explain male disposability. The standard explanation is the rare egg theory – that males are disposable because there is an infinite supply of sperm but a finite supply of eggs, which have to eb husbanded carefully. There are two problems with this explantation.
First – egg scarcity is a matter of biology, so male disposability should be standard across all cultures, and it’s not. People recognize this in the form of rather unflattering stereotypes. “Hey, want to buy some Italian Army rifles – only been dropped once.”
Second – the egg scarcity explanation relies on the fast that a woman has a finite supply of eggs, but ignores that there is an almost infinite supply of women. The scarce egg eplantion presupposes lifelong monogamy. Lifelong monogamy, for time out of mind, was not really an option even when it was desired – women died young, and all the time. There’s a reason for the Wicked Stepmother trope in folktales – everyone had a stepmother sooner or later.
So what’s going on, why the variety across cultures? Does male dipsoability have some adaptive value that applies in sosme cultures and not so much in others? It’s hard to see what benefit it would offer in stable farming cultures, but it has it has obvious adaptive value where the males have to be disposable, as in economies based on long-rage fishing or trade or on raiding and other firms of warfare. And there’s the real engine of male disposability – it is not just adaptive to certain specific challenges certain cultures face, but it is quite advantageous to any culture in conflict with another over resources or territory.
The real payoff with male disposability is success in war – and in the colonialism and imperialism that war enables. Anyone who promotes any aspect of the psychological edifice that is male disposability is enabling warfare, colonial domination and imperialism. Any aspect.
@ SYABM,
I read the feministe article and some of the comments and don’t really find them that bad. I am kind of baffled though and seem somewhat confused by their advice. You shouldn’t pressure someone into sex they don’t want. Got it. You don’t have to give him sex either. Got it. You have the right to tell him that this is why your breaking up with him. So, is she giving up the right to get back together with him? If she’s not and she takes him back because he changed his behavior, how would that not essentially be pressuring him? Even with holding oral sex previously given without qualification is pressuring him when you make him giving oral sex a precondition for receiving it?
“Even with holding oral sex previously given without qualification is pressuring him when you make him giving oral sex a precondition for receiving it?”
If you’re only giving head as part of some kind of deal, you’re probably not going to be very competent at it, so why bother at all? Half-hearted head is half-assed.
And ridiculously upside-down. Asian women often choose white men because they want to get away from some of the repressive traditions in their own cultures. And white men often choose Asian women because they want to marry an educated, professional woman who is every bit their peer. Think of any given woman with a master’s degree in a STEM field and ask yourself what race or ethnicity comes to mind.
What’s really mind-blowing is when you get one of these unemployable women with a do-nothing college degree who fully intends to become a housewife and fully intends to live a lifestyle which will result in a man paying her alimony and child support, telling us that these inter-racial relationships are all about the “subjugation” of weak-minded, ignorant women. If you really want to know what these fair-minded women actually think of inter-racial marriage, just watch the recent SNL skit: http://www.hulu.com/watch/606113
Could someone help me by telling me what was in this Saturday Night Live sketch? The video can only be watched in the United States. But I’m fairly certain I can predict the attitude of Anglocentric women when an outsider marries their “property”.
“What’s really mind-blowing is when you get one of these unemployable women with a do-nothing college degree who fully intends to become a housewife and fully intends to live a lifestyle which will result in a man paying her alimony and child support, telling us that these inter-racial relationships are all about the “subjugation” of weak-minded, ignorant women. ”
It’s called a sly inversion yo and it’s a compensatory mechanism. It’s mind-blowing only if you are unfamiliar with the human capacity for self-deception.
Robert, you left off the URL to that sketch.
Another sly inversion – tarting this self-interested herd policing up as some kind of altruistic concern for the well-being of these foreign women.
Oh, don’t forget ‘closet pederast’ and ‘child molester’ because so many Asian women are very small.
This one shows where some of the emotional energy is coming from on this – some white women’s gender anxiety about how feminine they actually present.
Following that logic, it would be ok to have a 13-year old gf from Africa, as long as she has badonkadonk chest and buttocks.
I’ve likely gotten looks like that, maybe all the time, but I don’t really give a fuck.
“I have learned to clarify for our non-U.S. readers that in the United States “Asian” means “East Asian.” Desi don’t register as “Asian” for most Americans.”
Yep. Only squinty-eyed people count. “Asian” can technically include blonde/blue-eyed people to blacks too.
” “Asian” can technically include blonde/blue-eyed people to blacks too”
Well, only by one technical meaning of “Asia”. By that meaning Jews are “Asian-American”, and that term is never applied to them or to anyone else form the Middle East in the actual language. Technically India/Pakistan/Bangladesh are a subcontinent jammed up to and abutting Asia.
As for black people being Asian, that is a reference to south Indians, who are nowhere close to what “black” conveys in American parlance. And oh boy, I saw some Tamils go *off* on a thread on an American Afrocentrist type who wanted to claim some kind of genetic/cultural unity with them.
“Yep. Only squinty-eyed people count.”
Because it is an actual cultural reality – the Sinosphere.
Not just that, there are people who would be called ‘white’ around Pakistan and central Asia.
I know south Indians aren’t black at all. I was thinking of the Jarawa of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and some Melanesian peoples probably count too.
Apparently the term is “Negrito” for indigenous southeast Asians, but they have no close ancestry to Africans.
That is quite true and it bears on those very light-skinned people in the north too, who look rather European but really aren’t genetically. I am thinking of the Kalash, for instance: https://www.flickr.com/photos/21968832@N00/374490240/in/gallery-rsanchezcrespo-72157622824661924/lightbox/
….but when they do the DNA on these people they turn out to be the very predictable west Eurasian pattern.
In the UK I’ve been told, that when people refer to someone as “Asian” they’re generally referring to someone from the subcontinent–the vast majority of Asian Britons are Pakistani/Indian. My impression of the UK is that historically the divisions & stresses in the Uk have fallen along ethnic and class lines. The UK is overwhelmingly caucasian, far higher than I realized until I looked up the data a few days ago. Roughly 87% of Britons identify as white. The total percentage Asians was somewhere around 7-8%, I believe, with the majority coming from Pakistan, a smaller percentage coming from Inida & a tiny fraction coming from the far east.
“The UK is overwhelmingly caucasian, far higher than I realized until I looked up the data a few days ago.”
It’s Europe, after all. One wouldn’t be surprised to find the same rate of people being Negroid in an West African country.
Those immigrant populations are concentrated in urban centers, so they are quite visible. You don’t find “ethnic” communities (“ethnic” because English is an ethnicity too) in the countryside, the way you do in the US or Canada.
That’s quite true.
From what I’ve read, a few decades ago Indians and Pakistanis in the UK used to call themselves ‘black’, as it was not an ethnic label then but more of a political one. This was when racist beatings were everyday occurences though.
I never understood this attitude. I love all types of women from different ethnic backgrounds. I’m White (British on my Fathers side) but was born in the US, and my Mother is Portuguese my Dad also got looks from people while with my Mother.
As a man married to a Filipina I have had to deal with some of these issues, especially the whole mail order bride thing. Some of it was my own prejudice. I was raised in the midwest at a time and place when there were very few non-whites in my community except for the African American population. The only things I knew about the Philippines was that they killed Magellan, was a prize taken by force from Spain, made a U.S. teriitory and then freed, and that MacArthur was so impressed on his first visit that he wanted to go back.. The only other thing I “knew” was that Filippina brides were for sale through mail order catalogs. The biggest thing I had to overcome before marrying one was my own fear that people would think I was so desperate for a wife that I’d purchased one.
One of my mother’s first comment (made before she met my wife) was to ask whether or not she had a green card. She suspected that I was being used to gain citizenship. Fortunately after meeting my wife, my family set whatever prejudices they had aside. Unfortunately there are still some members of the general public that give us those “looks.” I’ve learned to ignore it.
Something else though, that I’ve learned from my wife’s point of view (she’s never specifically said it) is that Filipinas tend to view white men as success objects. We are status symbols, proof to other Filipinos that they have gained acceptance into American culture. If there is objectification going on, it goes both ways. I also agree that in many ways it is both sexist and racist.
One thing I’ve always thought about sexual objectification is that it is not a bad thing. My view is that it is part of human nature that we judge others according to their usefulness. Being useful is a large part of what it means to be human. Both feminists and MHRAs want to deny this (for different reasons), but I think both are wrong. Humans are social animals. We require each other in order to survive which is why we form societies and develop cultures, as well as sex and gender roles. While these roles may not always be fair, they do provide each and every one of us with a purpose and define the ways in which we can contribute to society. I do think that these roles need to be more flexible and allow for more individuality in modern society so they need to change, but the human need to be useful remains.
The status symbol thing somewhat goes for men too. Men around Asia and Africa tend to completely pedestalize white women, not only on beauty, but also on money/status and especially green card attempts.
Living in Vancouver, everybody ends up getting married to somebody from a different race or culture than their own, my wife is from Hong Kong. In the local dating sites, Asian women seeking white men outnumbers white men seeking Asian women by 8 to 1. Intermarriage is so common in Vancouver that nobody gives it a second thought, I’ve only ever suspected discrimination when we travel in the Southern U.S.
I think it is simpler than objectification. It is biological competition, that thing which feminists pretend doesn’t exist except perhaps in males and certainly not in females.
Hey, nobody hassled Lennon. White broads, especially the feminist slobs in the Boston and Washington DC regions are such angry ball-busters, a guy would date a watermelon more sensibly than most of the white women. So date the Asian and Hispanic women if you want. Use the dating sites, doesn’t matter which one. There are so many single women everywhere anymore, just pretend to be whatever they want you to be, enjoy that booty for awhile, when the ball-busting starts, just dump them and find another. There’s no shortage because nobody gets married anymore and for me, I’m not gonna marry them so what do I care?
Feminism reversed, how’s it feel, Ball-Busters?
It’s not just white women. I’ve noticed it a lot with black women. I’m mixed, black father / white mother. Needless to say, growing up in a mostly white community, hanging out with my cousins on my mom’s “white side” of the family, I tended to be attracted to (you guessed it) white women.
Being mixed I always tend to be “not black enough” or “just black enough” depending on what the circumstances and argument was about. Apparently I’m “black enough” to be traitor to my race and get disapproving looks from black women when out with my Scandinavian/German (so gorgeous) fiance.
Mind you, I have about as much in common with the stereotypical black culture as George Bush. It wasn’t the culture I grew up in. I don’t like basketball. I don’t know the slang. I cannot comprehend their odd beauty standards and loud speaking volume. I’m a geek who likes D&D, listens to country, and loves Star Wars. They don’t care about that. They don’t see me as an individual with preferences, personality, ideas, or values. All they see is another black man choosing a white women over them. Women talk about being objectified and how men reduce them to possessions. This, to me, is the epitome of objectification. There is no way to lay claim to the sexual rights of another person that isn’t your spouse. You can’t say, “You can’t date this person because they aren’t your race. You must date someone like us.” It’s rediculous. It’s demeaning and, honestly, it’s pathetic. If a woman of any race wants to attract a particular man then she should work on herself and maybe get to know him as a person. Maybe turn down the volume, can the entitlement attitude, and care about what the man wants about oppose to what you can get out of him.
Yeah, I noticed Alot of black women seem to believe that they Own all Black men.
I do not think it is as much racism as anger at white men getting “more than they deserve”, primarily in terms of age, but also in terms of the stereotype that Asian women are more submissive. They are upsetting the system, just like Sam from Sex and the city is. Pretty much nothing more than the male version of slut-shaming.
Working with Southeast Asia, I also notice that there is definitely a flip-side. Traditional male obligations are dialled up. They expect designer handbags, become aghast at the prospect of having to work, and think that it is all ok because, after all, “you get to have me”. One colleague of mine gripes that his girlfriend will not even pay for coffee, despite making a solid upper-middle class salary.
But obligations do not stop there: the whole family will expect support. Even if they are relatively well off to begin with.
As a gay man, I blanche at how readily white men dispose of their dignity and accept such an arrangement. It is their choice, of course, but just as Sam will have to live with being devalued as a slut, these men will have to pay a high price as well. We should not forget that.
<❶❷❸.%@^@^@^!^!^!^!^.. ??????????+honeybadgerbrigade+.Part-time working I Saw at the draft which said $19958@mk9 < Read more info here='' ……..''
<☯✿✿☯✿✿☯✿✿☯✿✿☯✿✿☯✿✿☯✿✿☯✿✿☯✿✿☯✿✿☯
35
Men of Lawlessness
I wouldn’t want to condemn a relationship just because it is a white man with an asian woman but we should all be careful to make sure are views are not prejudiced.